What’s going on between the United States and Saudi Arabia right now could change the world.
As we reported yesterday, Obama will decide within 60 days on whether or not to declassify a certain 28 pages of a 2002 Congressional report on the September 11th attacks. Many believe the information contained in those 28 pages links Saudi Arabia to the attacks.
While Saudi Arabia denies any involvement, they’ve threatened to divest nearly $800 billion from U.S. assets if blame is placed on them.
And our response to that? In Obama’s America: give them MORE terrorists.
Yes – you read that right: “low risk” terrorist detainees. I suppose they’re the best of the worst?
The Obama administration isn’t skilled at determining who the “good” detainees are. While Obama has maintained that only a “handful” of released detainees have returned to the battlefield (which is still too many), there are 117 confirmed to have returned to terror, and 79 suspected. That comes out to nearly a 20 percent recidivism rate – or 30 percent if you include those suspected of returning to the battle field.
“The United States is grateful to the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for its humanitarian gesture and willingness to support ongoing U.S. efforts to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility,” the Pentagon said.
With this latest release, there are now 80 prisoners at Guantanamo, including 26 cleared men expected to be sent home or to another country by the end of the summer.
All of the men whose release was announced Saturday are Yemeni but could not be sent back to their homeland because U.S. officials fear that the instability there would enable them to resume the militant activities that landed them at Guantanamo in the first place. They are expected to take part in a Saudi rehabilitation program for an undisclosed length of time.
A Saudi rehab program? Oh THAT sounds promising.
We can’t even rehabilitate our own prisoners, yet we’re supposed to believe those who’ve devoted their lives to jihad can be rehabilitated. I’d say this was ambitious if it weren’t so crazy. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
[Note: This post was authored by The Analytical Economist]